fracture mechanics experimental tests (astm standards...
TRANSCRIPT
Task 6 - Safety Review and LicensingOn the Job Training on Stress Analysis
Pisa (Italy)June 15 – July 14, 2015
Fracture Mechanics experimental tests (ASTM standards and data) 2/2
Davide Mazzini – Ciro Santus
2
Content
• Fracture Toughness KIc
- Plane strain condition
- ASTM standard E399
• High Toughness JIc
- Limitation of the KIc
- ASTM standard E1820
• Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates
- Paris curve experimental determination, ASTM standard E647
Standard for Fracture Mechanics
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
3
Wide plasticity CT specimen
Large Fracture Toughness
A very large specimenwould be required to test according to KIc
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
4
Definition
Rice 1968, J - integral
Let us assume an alternative material with Elastic behavior, not linear (hyperelastic material) and the same Stress/ Strain curve than the actual Elastic-Plastic one
For a monotonic loading the Stress/ Strain history is the same
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
5
Definition
Rice 1968, J - integral
J is an integral along a path.It does not depend on the path that can be arbitrary provided that it is around the tip of the crack from side to side.
x is the crack direction
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
6
Definition
Rice 1968, J - integral
J does not depend on the path that can be arbitrary provided that it is around the tip of the crack from side to side.
Zero integral for a closed path
Zero integral for free surfaces
*1 2 3 4
*1 2
1 2
+ + + 0
+ 0=
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
7
Energy Release Rate
J - integral equivalences
For an Elastic behavior, even not linear, the J integral equals the Energy Release Rate
Potential energy:
U is the stored strain energyF is the work done by external forces
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
Energy release rate:same as the G (elastic) parameter,A is the crack area.
8
The Griffith problem
J - integral equivalences
Infinite plate with a crack, with linear elastic material, and plane stress,Griffith found:
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
9
The Griffith problem
J - integral equivalences
Under these conditions:2d
daJ
A E
Being for this problem:
I , 1.0K F a F
Then it follows (that’s the reason of π):2IKJ
E
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
10
General case
J - integral equivalences
2
where:planestress
planestrain1
Shear modulus2(1 )
E EEE
EG
Only if the material is linear:
2 2 2I II III
2K K KJ
E G
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
11
CTOD – Crack Tip Opening Displacement
CMOD – Crack Mouth Opening Displacement
COD - Crack Opening Displacement
CTOD
CMOD is just the clip gauge measurement
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
12
CTOD – Crack Tip Opening Displacement
COD - Crack Opening Displacement
From ASTM standard E1820
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
13
CTOD – definition
COD - Crack Opening Displacement
Alternative way to define the CTOD:2×45° lines
Crack tip blunting(approx. circumferential)
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
14
CTOD can be related to the SIF under Small Scale Yielding
CTOD under SSY hypothesis
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
15
CTOD – can also be related to the J integral well beyond the validity
limits of LEFM
CTOD under large plasticity
Path around the strip-yield zone ahead of a crack tip
Plane stress conditions and a nonhardeningmaterial. More generally:
m is a dimensionless constant that depends on the stress state and material properties
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
16
CTOD – similar value under SSY hypothesis
CTOD under large plasticity
2I
YS
2I
YS
YS
Planestress:4
being:4
approximately:4 1 ( 1)
KE
K JJE
J m
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
17
J and CTOD
ASTM standard E1820
J and CTOD are still representative even over the 80% of the fully plastic load (plastic collapse)
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
18
ASTM standard E1820
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
19
From J back to K
ASTM standard E1820
2
where:planestress
planestress1
Shear modulus2(1 )
E EEE
EG
2 2 2I II III
2K K KJ
E G
ASTM plane strain assumption, mode I only
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
20
Similar to the previous standard…
ASTM standard E1820
The displacement gage
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
21
Similar to the previous standard…
ASTM standard E1820
Types of preparation notches
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
22
Similar to the previous standard…
ASTM standard E1820
The CT specimen
The DCT specimen
The SEB specimen
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
23
The CT specimens
ASTM standard E1820
Two CT specimen types,the increased size for the pin seat is for very high tension loads
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
24Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
Displacement gage fixture details
ASTM standard E1820
Previous standard
25
J calculation for CT specimen
ASTM standard E1820
Elastic term
Plastic term
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
26
J calculation for CT specimen
ASTM standard E1820
These values are for the initial crack, just after the (fatigue) precrack
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
27
J-R curve determination
ASTM standard E1820
a
The suggested procedure is to determine a series of J values for increasingly crack size, and then obtain a (fit) Resistance curve
a
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
28
J-R curve determination
ASTM standard E1820
For each crack increment (i) there is an unload cycle to determine the crack size through the compliance
( ) ( ),i iJ a
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total displacement, mmLo
ad, k
N
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
29
J-R curve determination
ASTM standard E1820
(i) stands for the updated values for the crack increments
(i=0) is just the initial crack
K(i) is calculated exactly as the previous standard
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
30
J-R curve determination
ASTM standard E1820
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
31
J-R curve determination
ASTM standard E1820
Compliance Load Line calculation:
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
32
J-R curve determination
ASTM standard E1820
Crack size calculation (compliance method):
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
33
J-R curve determination
ASTM standard E1820
Compliance correction
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
34
J-R curve
ASTM standard E1820
Power law regression line
( ) ( )
, ,
are the regression coefficientsfor fitting the points
,
oq
i i
a B C
J a
Least squares fit procedure to find the regression coefficients
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
35
J-R curve
ASTM standard E1820
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
36
J-R curve
ASTM standard E1820
Ic is defined near the initiation of stable crack growth. The precise point is usually ill-defined an offset (similar to yield strength) is required
J
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
37
J-R curve
ASTM standard E1820
2
Y
Y
2
Ic Ic
Example:kJ N N200 200000 200 200MPa mmm m mm
800MPa
10 2.5mm ...easy to be satisfied!
Conversion:/ (1 ) 220GPa
6630MPa mm 210MPa m
Q
Q
J
JB
E E
K E J
Yield and Ultimateaverage
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
38
Alternatively the δ-R curve (CTOD-R curve)
ASTM standard E1820
CTOD instead of J
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
39
J-R curve
ASTM standard E1820
IcIc Ic
Ic is just theonset of fracture,thespecimen can sustain highervaluesof , indeed thecurvecontinues with a (stable)increaseof thecrack size.
QJJ J KE
J
J
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
40
J-R curve
The Resistance curve
IcRising curveafter J
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
41
J-R curve
The Resistance curve
IcRising curveafter J
Stable further propagation
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
42
J-R curve
The Resistance curve
1 2
3
1 5
4 unst
paths: Load control, stablecrack growthlimit stable crack
crack
paths: Displacementcontrol paths
stable crack g
able
rowth
i
i
PP
P
PP
4P
Load control is usually less stable than displacement control,in most structures the conditions are between the extremes of load and displacement control
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
43
J-R curve
The Resistance curve
Three stages of crack growthin an infinite body
Steady State
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
44
R curve, single fracture toughness value
The Resistance curve
Unstable,K J
Ic Ic,K J
crack size a0a
( ), ( )K a J aStable
With a single value the curve is just asymptotic
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
45
ASTM standard E1820
Homework:
Apply the ASTM E1820 procedure extracting data from the test file:Test J_Ic.xlsx
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total displacement, mm
Load
, kN
Then estimate JQ and verify if it can be converted into JIc
?
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
46
The damage tolerant approach
Crack (stable) propagation under fatigue
The presence of a crack (actually detected or just postulated) can be tolerated if the propagation rate is reliably estimated.
The size of the postulated crack is the minimum detectable of the inspection method.
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
47
Paris’ law (also known as the Paris-Erdogan law)
Fatigue crack propagation
max min
min
max
dd
where:
, are parameters depending on:- the material
-the load ratio
ma C KN
K K K
C m
KRK
Paul C. Paris
I(usually )K K
Time
1N 2N ...N
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
48
Paris’ law validity range
Fatigue crack propagation
thKcK
Paris validity
Near threshold
Sudden(unstable) fracture
th is the thresholdstress intensity factor rangebelow this amplitude thecrack remains same sizethough fatigue loaded
K
max
c
Ic
is the thresholdstress intensity factor rangefor which Approaching this valuethecrack turns intounstable propagation
K K
K
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
49
Paris’ law integration
Fatigue crack propagation
1-2 /2 ( 2)/2 ( 2)/21 2
d ( )d
after assuming does notchange(at least not significantly)
the dependececan beintegrated:
2 1 1( 2) ( )
with 2(usually 2)
m m
m m m m m
a C K C F aN
F
a
Nm CF a a
m m
1a 2a
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
50
Fatigue crack propagation
Example:
1 2
14
1-2 /2 ( 2)/2 ( 2)/21 2
5
1mm, 5mm,for example 100mm
1.12100 MPa
3.25mm/cycle7.481 10
(MPa mm)
2 1 1( 2) ( )
4.620 10 cycles
m
m m m m m
a aa b bF
m
C
Nm CF a a
1a 2a
b
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
51Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
Fatigue crack propagation
Example:
1 2
i
ii iii iv
51-2 i ii iii iv
1mm, 5mmlimited width, 10 mmthecalculation can be donestepwisedividing the crack range in small steps:
1.38( 1 2mm)1.65, 2.1, 2.7
1.700 10 cycles
a ab
F aF F F
N N N N N
1a 2a
b
52
Fatigue crack propagation
Example:
1 2
51-2
51-2
1mm, 5mmlimited width, 10 mmParis' law (numerical) integrationMATLAB
1.843 10 cycles
(previous result 1.700 10 cycles)
a ab
N
N
100cycles(small)stepsintegration
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
53
Fatigue crack propagation
AFGROW software for crack propagation calculation
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
54
Fatigue crack propagation
ASTM E647
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
55
ASTM standard E647
DefinitionsUsually tests are performedat positive load ratiose.g.: 0.1R
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
56
ASTM standard E647
Specimen geometry
For fracture toughness B = W/2, while for fatigue this requirement is less demanding.The KI values experienced by the specimen under fatigue propagation are much lower.
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
57
ASTM standard E647
Specimen geometry
LEFM validity condition, plane stress which is more demanding
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
58
ASTM standard E647
Specimen notch preparation
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
59
ASTM standard E647
Delta SIF calculation
Same relation to find the Stress Intensity Factor for the CT specimen
Currentvalue?
a
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
60
ASTM standard E647
Compliance method for
the crack size
Different positions of the crack gage clip
Here is theclipdisplacement
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
61Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
Crack size determination
Alternative ways for accurate crack size measurement during the test
- Potential drop
- Fractomat(Crack Gage)
62Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
Crack size determination
Potential drop
Calibration procedure
2
Examplecoefficients:
26.85 9.317 0.1367X XaY Y
63
Crack size determination
Fractomat crack gage
Crack range
As the crack propagates the foil resistance increases.Having a predefined geometry the calibration equation is already given by the manufacturer
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
64
0
5
10
15
20
25
ch1ch2
a' [m
m]
Crack size determination
Possible not parallel crack propagation, especially at the beginning
Application ofFractomatat the two sides
Number of cyclesChannels 1 and 2
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
65
ASTM standard E647
Near threshold/
high propagation rate
Near threshold
High rate
510 mm/cycle
th
7
:d 10 mm/cycled
KaN
thIc
The final part of the curve is usually not of interestonce is knownK
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
66Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
ASTM standard E647
Near threshold – Decreasing procedure
67
ASTM standard E647
Propagation rate calculation
A large number of cycles is recommendedbetween steps the and 1(instead of just two consecutive cycles)to have a significant, still small,crack size increment
i i
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
68
Data example
Q+T steel, similar to AISI 4340
Several tests with Fractomat and Potential Drop
th 9.4 MPa mK
3
3.6mm/cycle0.4 10
(MPa m)m
m
C
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015
69
Data example
Homework:
Compare the experimental data with the alternative Paris model:
th( )m mda C K KdN
th
3
9.4 MPa m3.6
mm/cycle0.4 10(MPa m)m
Km
C
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
5 50
POTENTIAL DROP
CRACK GAGE
Pisa, June 15 – July 14, 2015